Boris makes London's roads more lethal.
Comments
-
number9 wrote:A disproportionate danger is posed by a certain road user.
DonDaddyD?'12 CAAD 8 Tiagra0 -
Sorry for the length, i can't find a link to this:
Dangers from HGVs to cyclists and pedestrians Proposals to TfL for a campaign—AAT revised
Background to the proposals
The problem is longstanding and has been the subject of previous initiatives. These have shown that there is no “magic bullet”. A range of measures is needed to make a sufficient impact
Proposals
The proposals are organised by vehicle (HGV), road user, road environment, and safety management.
HGV
1. Mirrors. TfL should examine the imposition of restrictions on lorries allowed on streets in the GLA area. Such restrictions could be progressively tightened. Currently HGVs without front-facing mirrors (unless newer than 2007),
* HGVs with cabs and windscreens designed for inter-urban use, such that drivers cannot see their surroundings and have to rely on up to six mirrors
* HGVs without warning signs, and are allowed on London streets crowded with pedestrians and cyclists.
2. Sideguards. HGVs without side overrun guards are also allowed to operate in London. Exclusions should be reconsidered, The aim should be to go progressively beyond the requirements of national and EU legislation to a situation in which HGV drivers in London can see their surroundings and operations are safe enough to aspire to zero deaths and serious injuries. Steps along this progression could be the establishment of transhipment centres and the development of a “London lorry
3. Sensors and alarms. Operators should be strongly encouraged to introduce sensors and alarms, as has Cemex.
4. Warning signs
a. Cyclists. Every lorry should have a warning sign displayed on the rear nearside
b. Pedestrians. On the sides of HGVs at the front nearside, there should be warning signs about walking close to the front of a stationary lorry
Road user
5. Training programmes
a. Lorry drivers. The new training requirements for HGV drivers ( hours per year) make it possible to develop a focussed module, as has been done by LCC for bus drivers. A challenge will be to reach self-employed drivers and smaller firms. What about extending Lambeth programme
b. Foreign drivers. A special training course should be mandatory for drivers of foreign registered HGVs on London’s roads. [WOULD THIS BE CONTRARY TO EU LAW ON FAIR TRADE?]
6. Public awareness campaigns
a. Cyclists. Messages need to stress the specific dangers, without portraying all cycling as dangerous.
b. Pedestrians. The danger to pedestrians is less well known than that to cyclists and a media campaign may be needed.
c. ‘Exchanging Places’ demonstrations. Placing HGVs in prominent places, such as Trafalgar Square, and inviting cyclists into the cabs should be extended to target pedestrians. To increase HGV drivers’ awareness, similar demonstrations should be organised at lorry parks just outside London.
d. Videos. Clear, easy to understand, videos showing dangers should be made readily available for widespread distribution. The latest Metropolitan Police video is useful, but needs professional editing.
e. Reporting campaign. Cyclists and pedestrians should be encouraged to report bad driving involving HGVs before a death or serious injury occurs. AND THE POLICE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED/ ORDERED TO TAKE THESE SERIOUSLY AND PROSECUTE WHERE POSSIBLE. CAN THEY LEGALLY DO SO ON WITNESS EVIDENCE SUCH AS THIS.
Safety management
7. Coordination
a. Commission. A standing Commission, led by TfL and including representatives from the Metropolitan Police, Cycling and Walking organisations, lorry operators, DfT and others, should be established to ensure good coordination.
b. DfT A closer dialogue with DfT is needed, including on side overrun guards, where the DfT has not followed up the report it commissioned from TRL some years ago
8. Research and policy development
a. Update. Knowledge of the problem and possible remedies should be brought together in a single report. This should take account of the current study on Cyclists’ Safety for the DfT. The research in 2007 on cyclists’ deaths should be brought up to date and extended to cover pedestrians.
b. Database. A constantly updated database of HGV-related deaths and serious injuries should be available to all parties concerned.
c. Reporting. Additional data should be collected on each K/SI collision involving an HGV and a pedestrian or cyclist. This data should include presence of mirrors, sideguard, warning signs, alarms, sensors, height of cab, presence of ‘blindspot’, driver’s vision etc
d. Collision investigators. A meeting should be convened of collision investigators to garner lessons from their experience and insights.
e. Annual review. An annual review should be held with findings presented to the public
f. Research. Research should be conducted into the practicality of a London lorry with a smaller cab design and also the benefits for London of a civil compensation system based on driver liability, as being currently discussed in Scotland
9. HGV operators. A Code of Conduct for operators should be available and promoted through trade associations and the police.
10. Freight Operators Recognition Scheme. This TfL scheme should be expanded as quickly as possible. All public bodies in London, particularly London local authorities, should be gold standard members and should only employ FORS members for haulage contracts.
11. Commercial Vehicle Education Unit. The CVEU has done much good work publicising the risk of HGVs to cyclists and should be continued. Collision investigation reports should include copies of their visit reports to any company whose driver was involved in a fatal crash.
12. Trade associations. The Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association, the Mineral Products Association and other trade associations should be fully brought into this campaign
13. Operators. The new obligations under the Corporate Manslaughter legislation and Health and Safety guidance need to be promulgated more strongly, especially to smaller operators.
14. Prosecutions. A closer dialogue is need with the Ministry for Justice on prosecution policy. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency has been provided with additional powers and resources, so the current very low level of deterrent prosecutions could be raised.
15. Funding. A campaign adequately addressing the above topics would require funding, both internally and for any NGO input required
16. Considerate Contractor Scheme. This should be extended to include approach roads to construction sites. I see this is a City of London scheme. More widespread is the Considerate Constructors Scheme as my comments above and detail of which is below FYI
Road environment
17. Fatal collision site inspection. Each site of a fatal collision should be reviewed for altered street lay-out there and lessons elsewhere
18. Trixie mirrors. The trials of Trixie mirrors on cycle super highways could lead to more widespread use.
19. Junction design. The indirect road danger from traffic speeds created by curves designed to accommodate HGVs could be reduced by tighter curves, with cobbled areas for HGVs
20. Major construction projects. Special measures should be developed for HGVs for the Olympics, Crossrail and other major projects (A high proportion of HGVs delivering to the main Olympic site failed a Police check last year).0 -
number9 wrote:I would rather get vehicles with defects off the roads, before they kill someone.
It rather depends on if the defects are a factor in the accidents. Sure, strive for defect free but if the issue lies elsewhere then you are focussing in the wrong area; it's like polishing your doorstep while the roof is on fire.'12 CAAD 8 Tiagra0 -
It rather depends on if the defects are a factor in the accidents.
I disagre, I think HGV drivers on mobiles, who have fiddled the tacho or are otherwise dangerous are intrinsically posing a risk to others and should be removed from the road before anyone gets hurt. These aren't minor breaches.0 -
Plus, the Operation Mermaid, where stop-checks were made on lorries, took place across Europe. The stats for the UK are grim, in Notts and Hampshire more than half the lorries stopped were illegal in some way, were breaking the law or had unsafe loads or defective vehicles.
The old unit stopped two and a half thousand vehicles a year.
If nothing takes the old unit's place, that's over TWELVE HUNDRED unsafe, dangerous vehicles allowed to trundle round London without getting pulled.
I'm beginning to wonder what the headline will be when the unit closes and an HGV is involved in yet another death...0 -
number9 wrote:
I think HGV drivers on mobiles, who have fiddled the tacho or are otherwise dangerous are intrinsically posing a risk to others and should be removed from the road before anyone gets hurt. These aren't minor breaches.
I agree with that. How many prosecutions of these drivers did this special Police team bring last year? Are they effective in this regard? Are they the right tool for the job?'12 CAAD 8 Tiagra0 -
Until we know an equal or greater number of lorries will be stopped despite cutting a million quid from the budget, all we do know is that there will be 1200 unsafe lorries trundling around London that the old unit would have caught.0
-
I'm going to be the first (I think) to call wind up on this one. Nobody that actually gives a t*ss is this;
Belligerent
Arrogant/belittling
Stupid
Useless at arguing
Useless at statistics
Useless.0 -
number9 wrote:Putting that in the first post would have been a good idea, instead of the "HGV's are evil" bias you put in instead.
How would it have changed the premise?
It wouldn't change the premise. My initial problem with your posts wasn't the premise, it was the tone.number9 wrote:You claimed, with no evidence, that not many checks were carried out.
When you were corrected you claim it's mt fault you were wrong because I didn't tell you sooner!
Did I really claim that? I said "very few by the looks of it" which was the case up until you posted some more facts, it looked like they didn't do very many checks. 12 was the sum total we had in the thread, though the more relevant evidence is that none of the 12 trucks passed the check. If this unit checked half the lorries in London every week all year I don't think the failure rate would be that high.
Thats how argument works. You make a claim, it gets challenged and you have to back it up. The challenge that this unit doesn't do checks has been met, well done.
Somebody did...."This suggests that, whilst the overall number of cyclists killed in London is going down, from an average of 22 per year 2000 – 2003 (a 4 year total of 84 quoted by the London Road Safety Unit in correspondence with the LBMA), the number of London cyclists killed by HGVs is going up."number9 wrote:I didn't say it was, as you know full well.
Thats from one of your posts, though I did ask if it was from the BBC or you.
I see your questions weren't rhetorical. I don't live or work in London and I don't drive, nor know anyone who does drive, a HGV.
I'm still not with you on the idea that this unit's checks have any material part to play in the number of cyclists killed on the roads in London. As Corporate Camper says, for that we will need to show that a significant portion of the incidents with HGV's involve breaches the unit would check for.
Of course, this isn't a cycling issue at all really, it's a general road safety issue, since HGV's have incidents with all traffic users.
1200 "unsafe" lorries is a lot. We have the 2479 spot checks, but where does the 1200 come from, I can't seem to find that in your posts. I guess I missed it.
Does anyone know how many HGV's "trundle" around the capital every year, out of curiosity?
Does it not make you wonder about how effective this Unit is though? There are 1200 drivers who don't think they will get caught. That doesn't make it sound like this unit is striking fear into the HGV community, does it? Perhaps the money is better spend elsewhere, like on a few real police officers on the street deterring HGV driver and car drivers alike from using mobile phones, bad lane judgement, SMIDSY incidents etc, or maybe just a few better designed junctions. Elephant and Castle Roundabout would seem a candidate. Has there not been more than one cyclists killed there in recent years?0 -
Eau Rouge, the 12 lorries stopped were NOTHING TO DO WITH the unit.
Operation Mermaid has nothing to do with the proposed withdrawing of funding.
1200 "unsafe" lorries is a lot. We have the 2479 spot checks, but where does the 1200 come from, I can't seem to find that in your posts. I guess I missed it.
The national rates, as I explained at length, are lower than for London. Even if you apply the lower rates, 1200 is the number that would have been detected based on the number of vehicles stopped, because the NATIONAL rate of unsafe, illegal or otherwise unroadworthy HGVs was more than 50%.
I'm still not with you on the idea that this unit's checks have any material part to play in the number of cyclists killed on the roads in London. As Corporate Camper says, for that we will need to show that a significant portion of the incidents with HGV's involve breaches the unit would check for.
Then I would repeat, again, that uninsured drivers, or drivers on a mobile, or drivers of unsafe vehicles, should be taken off the road BEFORE they kill someone.
These are not technical breaches.0 -
zanes wrote:I'm going to be the first (I think) to call wind up on this one. Nobody that actually gives a t*ss is this;
Belligerent
Arrogant/belittling
Stupid
Useless at arguing
Useless at statistics
Useless.
I agree.
Was it dav or eau rouge who turned up here a day ago, called me a troll, claimed a GCSE student could spot the flaws in my argument, then disappeared til today when it turned out he'd read the OP wrong and hadn't understood what had been said.
Give them time thugh, at least they've stopped with the insults.0 -
Clever Pun wrote:Can I just say if you don't cycle down the left of massive truck you'll have a much higher chance of getting to where you're going...
that's what needs to be addressed first, putting yourself out of harms way
Dangerous advice.
Cycling down the left might be the best option when cycling down the right leaves you nowhere to go.0 -
number9 wrote:Was it dav or eau rouge who turned up here a day ago, called me a troll, claimed a GCSE student could spot the flaws in my argument, then disappeared til today when it turned out he'd read the OP wrong and hadn't understood what had been said.
So, you are a troll. You'd have gotten away with it too until you slipped up in this post and quoted your own claim. Genius, I got suckered in for two days, and I normally spot them
You are a true internet craftsman, well done sir!0 -
davmaggs wrote:This seems like a troll, but I'm suckered in.
I agree with Eau Rouge. You've mixed in lots of personal hyperbole with some stats that a failing GCSE student would pick holes in in less than two minutes.
What you have completely failed to inform any of us about is why this unit is being shutdown. Could it be that actually it is a police job, or maybe they have been useless or perhaps some funding dried up. There could be various reasons other than Borris thinking HGVs aren't a problem.
If you want to raise the issue of HGVs then focus on providing some researched points. At the moment you are damaging your own cause.
Call me a troll, disappear for a day, then reappear and say my stats must be wrong cos you misread them. You thought I'd extrapolated the Mermaid roadside checks to all HGVs in London.
Apology accepted.0 -
prj45 wrote:Clever Pun wrote:Can I just say if you don't cycle down the left of massive truck you'll have a much higher chance of getting to where you're going...
that's what needs to be addressed first, putting yourself out of harms way
Dangerous advice.
Cycling down the left might be the best option when cycling down the right leaves you nowhere to go.
This seems perfectly sensible advice to me and certainly not dangerous. He doesnt say always filter right. He says dont filter down the left hand side of a HGV. The alternative to not filtering left maybe not filtering at all.0
